- No underlying crime was committed.
- There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson.
- Libby was not responsible for the leak of Plame's identity.
- Libby merely "left out some facts."
- Libby's leak was an effort to set the record straight.
- There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security.
- Fitzgerald is a partisan prosecutor.
- Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA.
- Plame's employment with the CIA was widely known.
March 7, 2007
Right Wing Myths about Libby Verdict
Media Matters has a good piece on the various myths we're seeing trotted out by the conservative media in response to the Libby verdict:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, I did glance at the article, but I gotta say the third point is just plain wrong, as I read it. The Armitage guy is the one who talked to Novak. We don't know if Judith Miller would have out-ted Plame, but she didn't have the chance. Of course, the rest of the points are absolutely true. The administration is starting to look like the Nixon White House.
It doesn't matter whether or not Ms. Miller "would have out-ted Plame." Libby leaked Plame's identity before Novak's article was published.
Here's what Mediamatters has to say about the third myth:
Some in the media have suggested that because Libby did not discuss former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity with Novak -- the first journalist to report she worked at the CIA -- he is not technically responsible for the leak. But such claims ignore the fact that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller on several occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column naming Plame as a CIA operative.
Further, they go on to say at this page:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701190001
That the indictment pointed out that Libby spoke to Judith Miller about Valerie Plame BEFORE Novak's column.
Post a Comment